WHEN ALEXANDER M. HAIG walked out of an Institute of Politics debate in early October because he was too busy to continue defending Ronald Reagan's presidential candidacy, he gave a startling display of his skewed priorities. In leaving the Reagan contingent at the debate short-handed and by refusing to tackle the post-debate questions considered obligatory by the Carter and Anderson surrogates, Haig showed that being "a team player" just doesn't sit well with him.

Back in October, that trait was easy to overlook--Haig was only a tough-looking general with visions of grandeur and Reagan was an unemployed ex-governor. Now Haig is the President's Secretary of State, a post which, as many presidents have stressed, should never serve as one man's bully pulpit or stepping stone to the Oval Office. As recent events have shown, Haig has yet to learn that lesson.

First, on Inauguration Day, he circulated a memo that, had it been approved, would have vastly increased the Secretary of State's power. Then, three weeks ago, he told newsmen that the Soviet Union had a "hit list" of Central American nations. That blustering allegation, though probably consistent with the President's own beliefs, revealed a disregard for subtlety and tact profoundly dangerous in the nation's highest-ranking diplomatic official.

A week later, while the White House quietly debated the structure of its crisis-management system, Haig--afraid of losing status--spilled the beans, telling a congressional committee of his "lack of enthusiasm" about the possibility that Vice President Bush might receive the post instead of him. Furious about Haig's fierce infighting and evident lack of allegiance, Reagan appointed Bush hours later--prompting Haig to draft a letter of resignation that he later opted not to deliver.

And last week Haig showed that bureaucratic wars and influence jockeying don't stop even during events like presidential shootings. After telling an impromptu press conference that he was "in control" after Reagan "took a round" in his left side, Haig proceeded to misrepresent the presidential line of succession. Characterisitcally, he put himself next in line after Bush, ignoring two officials who happen to be elected: the Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Haig's willingness to ask Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger '38 to remove the low-level alert he had ordered so the Secretary of State would not look bad in front of the press is just another example of Haig's me-first theory of government.

Though we find Haig's rabidly anti-Soviet, good-versus-evil world view frighteningly simplistic, he should continue to offer the President his expertise and true policy views--in private. And should Reagan take any steps Haig disagrees with on policy grounds, he should air his views.

But no president should tolerate a power-hungry Secretary of State unable to see the need for calm loyalty--or reasoned dissent on real issues--in a world where saber-rattling can easily lead to war. If President Reagan had wanted an ambitious and militaristic secretary hell-bent on bolstering his own-influence, he'd have chosen Woody Hayes or J.R. Ewing '54. As soon as the President recovers, we urge that he begin looking for a Secretary of State who can tell the difference between self-interest and the national interest.